Result in Paris counted as a draw.Originally Posted by dr_peepee
The EURO 2012 play-offs will be seeded using the UEFA coefficient, not the FIFA rankings. The next time you'll have to worry about the rankings is November 2011 - the preliminary draw for the 2014 FIFA World Cup.
If Japan don't defeat Serbia on April 7th, you'll climb one spot to 43rd.
FIFA Ranking: April 2010 preview (I).
Cool, cheers for that.
For what they're worth, the latest FIFA rankings have been released today and see us rise five places to 36th after the victories over Paraguay and Algeria prior to the World Cup. Unsurprisingly, France have suffered quite a tumble by twelve places to 21st due to their embarrassing showing at the tournament. The continental ranking rates us the 21st best team in Europe.
http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ra...ion=0&rank=194
England up 1? Failed to qualify for Euro 2008. WC06 Q Final appearance and knocked out in second round (2010)
Italy drop out of top 10. Won the WC in 2006, qualified for Euro 2008 etc.
Baffling.
I believe the rankings don't take anything older than four years ago into account.
England won all ten competitive matches en route to the World Cup, whilst Italy drew with us twice! That should clear it up for you.
I've always hated the rankings sytem, especially because everyone in America thinks that it's the be all and end all of how good a team is.
Didn't England lose to Ukraine? Italy were undefeated and I'd say our group was tougher. How does it explain England messing up their Euro 2008 qualifying campaign. Italy got through no bother and then played 4 games at the tournament itself.
Yes, France and Italy have been hit double. Their great performance in WC 2006 has been wiped off and they both performed poorly at this tournament (and the last). Italy are probably flattered by their results in our qualifying group.
According to the FIFA site, these are the games that counted towards this month's movements for both England and Italy since the last set of rankings were released.
Code:Date Match Type Pts 27/06 GER 4:1 (2:1) ENG FIFA World Cup™ Final 0.00 23/06 SVN 0:1 (0:1) ENG FIFA World Cup™ Final 2100.00 18/06 ENG 0:0 ALG FIFA World Cup™ Final 629.00 12/06 ENG 1:1 (1:1) USA FIFA World Cup™ Final 688.20 30/05 JPN 1:2 (1:0) ENG Friendly 430.13 24/05 ENG 3:1 (2:1) MEX Friendly 507.83I'm not an expert on how the rankings are calculated as I've never really bothered to go into too much detail with them, but if you've a bit of time, the methodology behind the calculation is explained in depth here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Wo...ulation_methodCode:Date Match Type Pts 24/06 SVK 3:2 (1:0) ITA FIFA World Cup™ Final 0.00 20/06 ITA 1:1 (1:1) NZL FIFA World Cup™ Final 451.40 14/06 ITA 1:1 (0:1) PAR FIFA World Cup™ Final 669.24 05/06 SUI 1:1 (1:1) ITA Friendly 176.00 03/06 ITA 1:2 (0:1) MEX Friendly 0.00
From a brief skim over that, it appears that, within the last four year period, recent fixtures count more - amongst other criteria (result, match status, opponent strength, relative confederation strength) - while earlier fixtures are gradually weighted less and less as time moves forward until they are no longer counted once a four-year period has passed since the date they were played. I don't know how satisfactory an explanation that is, or even if it is one really, but it's something at least I guess.
How those respective figures from the individual matches are then transformed into, say, the total figure of 1125 accorded to England for the last four-year period - an increase of 57 points since May's rankings - and the total figure of 982 accorded to Italy for the same four-year period - a drop of 202 points since May's rankings - I'm not totally sure. Maybe it says there and I'm completely blind. Numbers were never my forté.
Indeed. I remember people used to scoff at the lofty positions occupied by CONCACAF sides like the USA and Mexico. And for good reason too. The positions were seen as being disproportionately flattering in terms of a comparison with genuine ability and the nature of the results - often against relatively inferior opponents compared to those opponents teams from other confederations had to face - from which the points affecting the rankings were gained. I think FIFA attempted to rectify this with the changes they introduced to the calculation methodology in 2006.
However, the position of Egypt in 9th and Gabon ahead of us in 34th would suggest that there might be something up with how CAF results are currently weighted. Unless I'm really underestimating both, but neither even qualified for the World Cup. Maybe I could excuse Egypt's positioning given the fact they've won the African Cup of Nations for a few years running and only just lost out on World Cup qualification in a play-off against Algeria, but Gabon in 34th (six places ahead of Cameroon even) seems like a complete anomaly considering they were ranked a lowly 104th three years ago and had been residing around that position for quite some years before that. But again, maybe I'm underestimating them completely as I'm not going on anything else other than my gut perception of their ability and what I have in front of me here. I remain open to correction if such is the case.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 14/07/2010 at 2:22 PM.
England got 27 points in qualifying, three more than Italy. The most significant difference between their qualifying groups was that Italy didn't have six guaranteed points against a village team- but against that Cyprus, Georgia and Montenegro only managed three wins between them, from 30 matches.
Indeed. However weak Africa is overall, even winning one continental cup (only six months ago) is impressive. Let alone three in a row.
ALTERNATIVE UEFA RANKING BASED ON WORLD CUP FINALS AND QUALIFYING PERFORMANCE ONLY:
1 (1) Spain, World champion
2 (2) Netherlands, finalist...
3 (3) Germany, semis
4 (5) Portugal, round of 16
5 (4) England, round of 16
6 (16) Slovakia, round of 16
7 (11) Switzerland, group stage
8 (12) Slovenia, group stage
9 (8) Serbia, group stage
10 (18) Denmark, group stage
11 (7) Greece, group stage
12 (6) Italy, group stage
13 (13) France, group stage
14 (10) Russia, play-off
15 (15) Ukraine, play-off
16 (31) Bosnia, play-off
17 (21) R Ireland, play-off
18 (14) Norway, weakest group runner-up
19 (9) Croatia 20 qualifying points
20 (20) Sweden 18
21 28 Finland 18
22 27 Latvia 17
23 19 Czechia 16
24 22 Israel 16
25 23 Scotland 16
26 34 Hungary 16
27 32 N Ireland 15
28 17 Turkey 15
29 25 Bulgaria 14
30 33 Austria 14
31 39 Belarus 13
32 36 Macedonia 13
33 29 Lithuania 12
34 41 Wales 12
35 24 Romania 12
36 30 Poland 11
37 40 Iceland 11
38 26 Belgium 10
39 35 Cyprus 9
40 38 Montenegro 9
41 43 Estonia 8
42 37 Albania 7
43 49 Kazakhstan 6
44 45 Azerbaijan 5
45 47 Luxembourg 5
46 48 Faeroes 4
47 44 Armenia 4
48 46 Georgia 3
49 42 Moldova 3
50 50 Liechtenstein 2
51 51 Malta 1
52 52 Andorra 0
53 53 San Marino 0
Official FIFA rank shown for comparison
Last edited by Gather round; 14/07/2010 at 2:22 PM.
I've always put far more stock in the Elo ratings. The difference between two team's ratings is related to an estimate of how often one will beat the other (draws counting as half a win). The ratings are updated after each match. It's not dissimilar to a bunch of techniques used to estimate things in telecommunications and other fields.
We're 27th by that measure, Egypt are 12th (so they do seem to be pretty good), and Gabon are nowhere in sight.
You can't spell failure without FAI
At first sight, they look just as convoluted as FiFA's.
It's unnecessarily subjective. You don't have to rely on estimates, when you have a more than adequate set of competitive and recent results for every team.The difference between two team's ratings is related to an estimate of how often one will beat the other (draws counting as half a win). The ratings are updated after each match. It's not dissimilar to a bunch of techniques used to estimate things in telecommunications and other fields
According to ELO, you are ranked ahead of four European teams that qualified for the finals, including two qualifying group winners one of whom made it to the round of 16.We're 27th by that measure, Egypt are 12th (so they do seem to be pretty good), and Gabon are nowhere in sight
Yes. They're also more accurate.
I think I've mislead you with the word "estimate". The results determine the estimate by mathematical formula. Trust me - this system is based on reasonably sound statistics.It's unnecessarily subjective. You don't have to rely on estimates, when you have a more than adequate set of competitive and recent results for every team.
Yes. There's some luck involved in football.According to ELO, you are ranked ahead of four European teams that qualified for the finals, including two qualifying group winners one of whom made it to the round of 16.
You can't spell failure without FAI
At least Gabon and NI have something in common in the Elo rankings.
They aren't particularly, I've pointed out a number of inaccuracies.
You haven't, I trust you and understand the principle. Trouble is that ELO's formula, whatever its benefits to actuarial/ engineereing/ chess grand master calculations, is basically unnecessary to working out that teams who qualify for the World Cup are better than those that don't, teams that make the play-offs like Bosnia can't be worse than the 12 higher-ranked Europeans that didn't, and so on.I think I've mislead you with the word "estimate". The results determine the estimate by mathematical formula. Trust me - this system is based on reasonably sound statistics
The league table doesn't lie.Yes. There's some luck involved in football
A system that ranks Poland (11 points in qualifying, fifth place) HIGHER than Slovakia (22 points, first, reached last 16) just isn't very credible, is it?
Last edited by Gather round; 16/07/2010 at 8:11 AM.
The ELO probably penalises Slovakia's severely because Slovakia only managed to pick up one point against an Irish team managed by Steve 'Stan' Staunton during the EURO 2008 qualifying campaign!!! Instant 1000 point reduction.
Gather round, every single ranking system will have something you disagree with. Greece won the European Championships. How on earth were they lower ranked than Spain afterwards? Poland are dropping in the rankings, Slovakia are rising. Neither team has reached equilibrium yet.
Statistical analysis led JP Morgan to conclude that England were favourites for the world cup: they were 4th before the finals in the Elo scheme on the back of their qualifying campaign (since dropped to sixth; and yeah, JP Morgan think the Elo system is the best statistical model of football) and had an easier route to the final than Brazil, Spain or Holland (I think). Luck, form, nerve: these are things a ranking system can't possibly evaluate.
You can't spell failure without FAI
Stan who? Come on, he's ancient history
Says who? I've suggested both FIFA's and your ELO equivalent are baloney and suggested something better, that reflects reality and is pretty easy to follow. In that it ignores the irrelevant (half-paced friendlies), the ancient (games from four or five years ago) and the convoluted (weighting games according to strength of the opposition or some onther arbitrary criteria).
You tell me. Like I said, the official rankings are baloney.Greece won the European Championships. How on earth were they lower ranked than Spain afterwards?
Ask your Poland-supporting friends, I suspect like mine they'll suggest their ranking has gone through the floor- and it won't 'reach equilibrium' for a while, given that they wpn't be playing any competitive games for the next two years. They're simply rubbish, and any system which distorts that to the extent ELO does is of limited use in measuring recent real past, as distinct from predicted future performance.Poland are dropping in the rankings, Slovakia are rising. Neither team has reached equilibrium yet
My own statistical evidence suggested that England were third best in Europe on 19 November (and still on 11 June, as I discount friendlies). Then, obviously, they fell back a bit. I don't know a single England fan who's graduated primary school who seriously thought they were favorite at start of the tournament- most expected them to match Sven's record of regular quarter-finals (ie by winning the group, then beating Ghana or Serbia before going out to another group winner, maybe France. Perhapd JP should stick to hedged derivatives or whatever and leave reading the odds to that octopus?Statistical analysis led JP Morgan to conclude that England were favourites for the world cup: they were 4th before the finals in the Elo scheme on the back of their qualifying campaign (since dropped to sixth; and yeah, JP Morgan think the Elo system is the best statistical model of football), and had an easier route to the final than Brazil, Spain or Holland (I think)
You can't be serious. Results follow from form (in which luck plays a small part, and the better/ more experienced teams tend to be less nervy, I reckon). To repeat- the ranking, broadly like a league table, should reflect recent performance and achievement on the field- not what JP thinks will sell best on the Dow Jones in future. At least FIFA are honest about why their equivalent exists- it 's to give them something to sell to Coca Cola and other corporate sponsors.Luck, form, nerve: these are things a ranking system can't possibly evaluate
Last edited by Gather round; 17/07/2010 at 7:31 AM.
Surely that table is flawed (not to mention being pinched from elsewhere) as Ireland are either equal 14th or 16th at worst (their FIFA/UEFA ranking is above that of Bosnia?). All tables are subjective and international football is becoming much like much of the English leagues where all teams, bar the top 3/bottom 6 or so, are capable of getting a result against each other, so the 'tables' are subject to much greater potential fluctuation in reality.
In our case, perhaps we deserve more credit for not losing many games, even if we seem to win precious few (against the 'higher-ranked' teams) in competitive games either!!!
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks